I would oppose King-What's-His-Name being 'King of the US' just as much as I oppose trump's bullshit.

just saying, we don't have kings here, and frankly the visiting one can go back to where he came from.

Also the actual literal King of the UK has less power in the UK than Trump does in the US and is very specifically not above the law like Trump is.

Has someone explained to them that "No Kings" isn't an anti-monarchy movement?

lol. Imagine the democratic house just losing their shit, booing and hissing whenever a monarchy figure from another nation visits.

That would be, by definition, replublican af.

This is so stupid. Like people trying to call Dems the BLM party

Voters =/= political parties. Voters created the no king protest, voters created black lives matter.

Dems are parasites who act like they're involved

It shows that they even missed the major point that a monarch from the country we freed ourselves from came here to address our Congress on the importance of saving the environment and keeping checks and balances in place to maintain democracy.

He either brilliantly roasted Trump, or us if we never do anything to stop Nazis and rebuild and reform our country.

Also Charles is a King in title only. Hes a tourist attraction. He has no real power.

Unlike what Trump is trying to do/become.

Fuck him too, for what it's worth.

Missing the class through the individuals, I see.

fuck the king

I kinda think this is a valid point.

Firstly, "No Kings" was always a bit of a piss-weak euphemism. It clearly means No Dictators, but that's too strong language for dems and casts uncomfortably truthful light on the system they want to be in charge of.

Secondly, don't give a standing ovation to an unelected monarch. Just don't. He uttered the words "checks and balances". So what? We have literal concentration camps and no rule of law. A child rapist and a pack of drunk nazis openly loot the public purse. We're way past checks and balances.

This is yet another example of the dems failing to understand the political moment.

Most of them look like they honestly don't give a shit. I see one guy who looks enthused.

Also, "No Kings" means "The United States of America has no kings." It bears no relevance to our diplomatic relations with monarchical states.

They literally clapped while King Charles fucking dunked on them, the conservatives I mean.

These people just believe whatever the fuck they want. I could convince them that Jesus was actually a mass murderer and they'd be all for it as long as the victims were brown.

My favorite part was when a huge part of the internet went down and suddenly, the amount of conservative posts/twitter users went silent.

Ro Khanna is looking like, “what’s the big deal here?”

The “people” in /r/conservative are either bots or raised on leaded water.

I'd love if the UK decided on abolishing the monarchy, but also, I'm not aiming to start a regime change in a foreign country over this. Instead I'm just gonna treat him as a foreign dignitary from a terrible but powerful family

Fun fact: in my Monarchical country the very little I've seen of the "no kings" movement was translated to "no tyrants" or something like this.

Unclear if it's official or if there's a body to decide what's official anyway.

It's No KingS. We're allowed one

It’s not stupidity, it’s malevolence.

Y'all are letting the other side control the narrative, don't talk about King Charles - focus on Donald trying to be a Monarch/Dictator.

They want you to have their bad faith argument so you don't talk about the actions of Trump.

It also has a lot to with Great Britain not supporting America in this stupid war, and actually handing out consequences to their people in the Epstein Files.

England, of all nations, has become the good guy, and America has become the bad guy. Ironic.

there where protests before his coronation, one dude was arrested for holding a sign as well. No one in a dck suit though from memory, apart from him of course ;)

anyway, fuck that guy as well.

And Republicans were the guys assassinating kings

Initially they said "US is not UK, it has no kings". It implies "UK is not US, it has kings".

Is this meant to argue that it isn't a sign of disingenuous values for "anti-authoritarians" to recognize and legitimise a literal monarchy (no matter how "ceremonial" it is)? Democrats are very much not against dictatorial rule, they've been complicit in its enforcement all over the world and have participated in its construction in the US (even if you want to think this is something new).

Damn, r/conservative accidentally making a valid point is a trippy thing.

It's kind of like if the neighbor's tragically inbred showdog suddenly barked every note of the musical Cats without a single error.

We should make it a capital offense for a monarch or inherited noble of any kind to set foot in the US. Being a monarch of any kind is a crime against humanity. I don't care how "constitutional" a monarch is. You're still talking about a monster that dares to claim power over others simply by right of birth.

We should still be open to diplomatic relations with monarchies. I'm willing to deal with diplomats, but this land should be unsullied by the rot of kings. The US really should be one of the most anti-monarchist nations on Earth. In fact, whenever I see one of my fellow citizens fawning over British royalty I want to call them a traitor to the Republic and everything the nation is supposed to stand for. Kings and Queens are not good people. Even the Constitutional ones are mincing freaks quietly waiting on the political sidelines, hoping for the day when democracy trips up and they can reclaim full power. Do you not think that deep in his heart, Chuck wishes he could be an absolute monarch just like his ancestors? He absolutely does. They all do. And that's why they all should be forced to either give up their crowns or give up their heads.

It should be a capital offense for any monarch or noble to set foot on US territory. Simply being a monarch on US soil should be enough to get your head cut off. Honestly, monarchs deserve far worse.

Does your country simply want to have someone that fills the role of a king or queen? Fine. Hold an election and elect a non-hereditary, ceremonial king. That's perfectly acceptable. But actual hereditary monarchs? They all deserve to have their head in a basket. Being a monarch is a crime against humanity. I consider crazed ax murderers to be better people than kings.

A king is nothing more than the descendant of a serial killer that killed so many people he was able to claim total power.

Perhaps it has to do with the non-sovereignty??